i thought that's what we were discussing? faith schools? like Catholic Schools etc? that's the point, i don't think there are that many, if any, pupils at these faith schools who are not of that particular faith. secondary schools especially have feeder primary schools who will all be of the same faith.

like any club, band, organisation, body, group, collective who are all trying to pull in the same direction, once you start forcing that group by law to accept members whose ideals go in the opposite way, then you've got problems.

what "ideas"? i'm just telling it like it was at my school. the religous stuff was a big deal, and it permeated the entire syllabus directly or indirectly. what happens to kids from families who don't want their children to have any part of that? your intentions are good, but you don't seem to have any idea of what you're asking for.

i don't understand this paragraph?

I went to Faith Schools but that was over fifty years ago so I will concede to your more recent experience and your claims that State Faith Schools are not suitable for any pupil not of that particular faith and that these schools do all actively promote their own religious views over a considerable part of the school curriculum.

Many supporters of faith schools claim the opposite so it is interesting to hear a different opinion.

The Bible presents an accurate historical record from the creation of the world up to the time of Christ. Luke who wrote his gospel and The Acts Of The Apostles is recognised as a noted historian. You may choose not to believe the Bible, but it is certainly not fiction.

The Bible presents an accurate historical record from the creation of the world up to the time of Christ. Luke who wrote his gospel and The Acts Of The Apostles is recognised as a noted historian. You may choose not to believe the Bible, but it is certainly not fiction.

The Bible presents an accurate historical record from the creation of the world up to the time of Christ. Luke who wrote his gospel and The Acts Of The Apostles is recognised as a noted historian. You may choose not to believe the Bible, but it is certainly not fiction.

And it is certainly not an accurate historical record of the history of the planet from its formation approximately 4 billion years ago, either.

I went to Faith Schools but that was over fifty years ago so I will concede to your more recent experience and your claims that State Faith Schools are not suitable for any pupil not of that particular faith and that these schools do all actively promote their own religious views over a considerable part of the school curriculum.

Many supporters of faith schools claim the opposite so it is interesting to hear a different opinion.

those type of faith schools are not insidious about their values, their religion or the type of education they offer. it's the first thing that hits you when you go to my school's website for example. it permeates the entire character of the place. it is reasonable therefore for the school entry requirements to request that it is pupils of that particular faith that apply to be schooled there. a local muslim school may be at the top of the league tables, have outstanding facilities and a reputation for good discipline, but i would not wish to send any children i had there because i don't personally align with the teachings of islam, which i know will be prevalent. i wouldn't feel discriminated against though.

the only alternative is to ban such schools, but rather than trying to level the playing field by removing the "edge" of faith school educated children as you put it earlier is to look at what it is that makes these schools apparently do so well, and why parents are more supportive and integral, and push to adopt those principles at non-faith schools so that they can catch up.

And it is certainly not an accurate historical record of the history of the planet from its formation approximately 4 billion years ago, either.

The definition you've given is why the Bible is not fiction. Fiction is literary work specifically invented by the author as a story and presented as such. That's not the case with the Bible; its contents are presented as factual. The Bible might be wrong, the information presented might not be accurate, but it's the presentation of it that makes it a work of non-fiction.

peon if you have time could you edit your last post the quotes are in the wrong places and make it appear I said what you said; thanks.

richard, apologies i didn't get time. if anybody looks to quote your post though i will of course clarify that it was my shoddy quoting that has given rise to text you haven't posted if that is acceptable?

those type of faith schools are not insidious about their values, their religion or the type of education they offer. it's the first thing that hits you when you go to my school's website for example. it permeates the entire character of the place. it is reasonable therefore for the school entry requirements to request that it is pupils of that particular faith that apply to be schooled there. a local muslim school may be at the top of the league tables, have outstanding facilities and a reputation for good discipline, but i would not wish to send any children i had there because i don't personally align with the teachings of islam, which i know will be prevalent. i wouldn't feel discriminated against though.

the only alternative is to ban such schools, but rather than trying to level the playing field by removing the "edge" of faith school educated children as you put it earlier is to look at what it is that makes these schools apparently do so well, and why parents are more supportive and integral, and push to adopt those principles at non-faith schools so that they can catch up.

Then I'd ban 'em Peon.

One might argue that faith schools such as you describe are doing no harm - because the students are of that faith. But would we say the same of, say, a BNP funded school? 25% of a child's time taken up with BNP activities?

We expect our schools to teach with some objectivity - no harm in having single interest groups within the school - but not permeating the school ethos.

It cuts both ways - I would ban any school that taught atheism as a core truth too.

One might argue that faith schools such as you describe are doing no harm - because the students are of that faith. But would we say the same of, say, a BNP funded school? 25% of a child's time taken up with BNP activities?

We expect our schools to teach with some objectivity - no harm in having single interest groups within the school - but not permeating the school ethos.

It cuts both ways - I would ban any school that taught atheism as a core truth too.

Whilst I am opposed to state funded state schools I do no think they should be outrightly banned

If it is a private, fee paying school, such as the one I went to, where good grades were achieved and people were happy to fund their childs education themselves, surely people can pay for that ethos?

One might argue that faith schools such as you describe are doing no harm - because the students are of that faith. But would we say the same of, say, a BNP funded school? 25% of a child's time taken up with BNP activities?

We expect our schools to teach with some objectivity - no harm in having single interest groups within the school - but not permeating the school ethos.

It cuts both ways - I would ban any school that taught atheism as a core truth too.

One might but I'd argue that they're wrong. They are doing harm by being divisive and promoting educational apartheid which cannot be a good thing if our aim is a cohesive society.

I'd oppose atheist schools as vehemently as I oppose faith schools for the same reasons.

One might argue that faith schools such as you describe are doing no harm - because the students are of that faith. But would we say the same of, say, a BNP funded school? 25% of a child's time taken up with BNP activities?

We expect our schools to teach with some objectivity - no harm in having single interest groups within the school - but not permeating the school ethos.

It cuts both ways - I would ban any school that taught atheism as a core truth too.

you have to consider what long term effects there are against the education received. i consider that for all its faults, i had a very good education. there was always money for activities, we had a brand-new top notch sports hall built, there was no shortage of equipment, the discipline was robust, but not severe. many pupils walk away from Catholicism when they leave anyhow, and i'm convinced that my year has more gay and lesbian ex-pupils pro-rata than any other school in the UK, and even they have fond memories of the place judging from facebook groups we're all members of etc

One might argue that faith schools such as you describe are doing no harm - because the students are of that faith. But would we say the same of, say, a BNP funded school? 25% of a child's time taken up with BNP activities?

We expect our schools to teach with some objectivity - no harm in having single interest groups within the school - but not permeating the school ethos.

It cuts both ways - I would ban any school that taught atheism as a core truth too.

Actually The Catholic Education Service appears to have a very similar view to peon about the nature of their State funded schools-

What is the Catholic school ethos?
The ethos of a Catholic school does not relate solely to the arrangement whereby it admits baptised Catholic children. Rather the Catholic ethos is a lived experience and permeates every aspect of school life.

“A Catholic school’s ‘ethos’ may be understood to be the outward signs and experiences of the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church in the totality of daily life in a Catholic school”

Actually The Catholic Education Service appears to have a very similar view to peon about the nature of their State funded schools-

What is the Catholic school ethos?
The ethos of a Catholic school does not relate solely to the arrangement whereby it admits baptised Catholic children. Rather the Catholic ethos is a lived experience and permeates every aspect of school life.

“A Catholic school’s ‘ethos’ may be understood to be the outward signs and experiences of the teachings of Christ and the Catholic Church in the totality of daily life in a Catholic school”

Frankly I'd rather give my children away to gypsies than send them to a Catholic school. Not for nothing, but you can never be sure WHAT they are teaching them behind closed doors. Wouldnt trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em and thats the absolute truth from my own personal point of view.

the only alternative is to ban such schools, but rather than trying to level the playing field by removing the "edge" of faith school educated children as you put it earlier is to look at what it is that makes these schools apparently do so well, and why parents are more supportive and integral, and push to adopt those principles at non-faith schools so that they can catch up.

Can I suggest that a way of doing this would be to allow all schools to select on the basis of what the parents believe. e.g. Parents who have shown a commitment to secularism could be given priority to non-faith schools with paid up members of the National Secular Society or the Humanist Association getting top priority.

We would i suspect very soon get massive increases in the membership of such organisations wherever there is competition for a good secular school (see Wizard's post on the other thread they are desperate to get a place in one of the two local non-faith schools it would no doubt be well worth their paying £15 to join the NSS and guarantee a place).

Sounds like a daft idea? I agree but frankly it is not in any way different to the principals by which Faith schools are allowed to select.

Unless all schools; or none; can select there can be no meaningful comparison of other factors, it is crucial because it allows those "parents (who) are more supportive" to congregate in whatever school already has a better rep. Success then attracts success and we just get an even bigger gap between the best and the worse schools.

Can I suggest that a way of doing this would be to allow all schools to select on the basis of what the parents believe. e.g. Parents who have shown a commitment to secularism could be given priority to non-faith schools with paid up members of the National Secular Society or the Humanist Association getting top priority.

We would i suspect very soon get massive increases in the membership of such organisations wherever there is competition for a good secular school (see Wizard's post on the other thread they are desperate to get a place in one of the two local non-faith schools it would no doubt be well worth their paying £15 to join the NSS and guarantee a place).

i would suggest that would only happen if such a school established itself with a reputation for good results, discipline, facilities etc. nobody would give a chuff about Catholic schools being selective if they were generally rubbish. i don't see anything particularly wrong with a school promoting a singular set of ideas, religion or culture for its intake, and they should either be allowed to choose who they take, or we have such schools banned altogether. trying to fiddle with the selection process and force in a percentage of kids who are going to want to swim against the tide is counter-productive.

The definition you've given is why the Bible is not fiction. Fiction is literary work specifically invented by the author as a story and presented as such. That's not the case with the Bible; its contents are presented as factual. The Bible might be wrong, the information presented might not be accurate, but it's the presentation of it that makes it a work of non-fiction.

Perhaps you would prefer the fourth, legal, definition from the same site then:

Quote:

4. Law Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

Frankly I'd rather give my children away to gypsies than send them to a Catholic school. Not for nothing, but you can never be sure WHAT they are teaching them behind closed doors. Wouldnt trust 'em as far as I could throw 'em and thats the absolute truth from my own personal point of view.

they teach us to throw darts at pictures of people like julian clary and alan carr and train us in stealth-snatching of babies from hospitals whilst disguised as priests and nuns.

i would suggest that would only happen if such a school established itself with a reputation for good results, discipline, facilities etc. nobody would give a chuff about Catholic schools being selective if they were generally rubbish. i don't see anything particularly wrong with a school promoting a singular set of ideas, religion or culture for its intake, and they should either be allowed to choose who they take, or we have such schools banned altogether. trying to fiddle with the selection process and force in a percentage of kids who are going to want to swim against the tide is counter-productive.

Interestingly the CofE appears to disagree with you or is at least trying to dispel the idea that their schools are in any way not places that provide equal education opportunities for all;

Church of England

Church of England schools are established primarily for the communities they are located in. They are inclusive and serve equally those who are of the Christian faith, those of other faiths and those with no faith.

Actually I call hypocrisy there (not you peon the CofE) if they really where committed to serving everyone equally they would not have fought so desperately to preserve their powers to discriminate against pupils on religious grounds.

In the case of the CofE I am simply saying they should live by their own claims and indeed serve everyone equally. The RCC is far more upfront about their own religious objectives (see my previous quote) and I am beginning to wonder if it is time to ask whether such a sectarian ethos should be getting State funding especially when that funding represents some 10% of the total amount spent nationally on Schools.

As for all schools having the right to select on belief or non-belief and each schools pupils coming 100% from particular parts of the community; have we learnt nothing from Northern Ireland? Truly I think your recipe for totally divided schooling is a recipe for future tragedy.